Thoughts on Causation

Do you ever get something caught in your mind and can’t let go of it? Well, I’ve been struggling with these scenarios over the break and think I’ve finally come to some cogent (though perhaps not very articulate) thoughts on them. Please let me know what you think.

Seavey and Keeton’s cases on pg. 465. Tort, Epstein, Eighth Edition.

Seavey’s Example:

“[T]he defendant leaves a ten-pound can of nitroglycerine on a table from which it is knocked off by a child; it hurts the child’s foot but, miraculously, does not explode. If defendant had left a can of water of similar size on the table, he could be held negligent: since the risk that materialized was unrelated to the explosive power of the nitroglycerine, the plaintiff could not recover.”

Keeton’s Example

“The defendant ‘negligently’ places unlabelled rat poison on a shelf full of food. The shelf happens to be near a stove that gives off heat, and the heat cuases the poison to explode, injuring the plaintiff. Keeton argues that this plaintiff should be denied recovery on grounds that the negligent aspect of the defendant’s conduct is not the cause of the plaintiff’s harm.”

I posit that the actor in Seavey’s example is in fact liable for the harm caused to the child because the temporal aspect of the negligence caused the harm, despite the harm being unforeseeable. However, in the second scenario, the actor is not liable because his negligence is incidental and has nothing to do with the harm.

With the 10 lb. tub of nitro, the negligent act was leaving it on the table. Whether the danger came from its explosion or its foot-crushing weight, the negligent placement caused the harm and constitutes liability. Hence any harm, whether within the realm of foreseeability or not, brings liability. If it had been water, and it is assumed that placing the water on the table was not negligent, the fact that it causes harm will not be enough for liability. The Negligence has to be within the act.

With the unlabelled rat poison, however, the negligent act was the omission of labeling the poison, not the temporal placement near the oven. Whether it had been labeled or not, it still would have been over the oven and exploded. Therefore, the negligent aspect of the act in this case does not cause the harm.

If it had been negligent to place the rat poison near where the actor placed it (perhaps a child, who cannot read a labeled or unlabelled rat poison can get to it), then the temporal aspect of placement would correlate directly to the harm and hence the actor would be liable.

Take two more scenarios:

Scenario 1: Assume that I negligently park my car in the middle of the road above a manhole. The act is negligent because I am not taking the reasonable standard of care to protect other drivers from running into my car. The manhole emits gas from an underground pocket (Act of God). The gasses ignite my engine and my car explodes, sending shrapnel into surrounding pedestrians.

Because the negligent aspect of my act was placing the car in its temporal location, I am liable for anything resulting from that placement regardless of whether or not I could have foreseen it at the time. Because my temporal placement (at THAT time and THAT place) of my car was the cause of the injuries and because it was a negligent act (negligent, albeit for different reasons that what ended up causing harm), I am liable.

Scenario 2: Now, assume I park my car with all due care on the side of the road above a manhole cover but I negligently leave my keys in the car. The same situation occurs. I will not be held liable because my negligence did not cause the harm. The incident would have occurred whether I had left my keys in the car or not, whether I had been negligent or not.

There must be a direct causal chain between my act and the harm. Just the same with the rat poison. The rat poison would have exploded whether or not it had been labeled. And the ten pound tub of nitro hurt the child because it was placed where it was. Regardless of how it ended up hurting the child, it’s temporal placement (what was deemed the negligent act) was the direct cause of the harm.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the type of harm, being foreseeable or otherwise, is irrelevant as long as the harm is caused from the temporal aspect of the negligent act. It’s irrelevant whether the harm is caused by the reason the act is held to be negligent as long as the act was negligent and the act caused the harm.